Campaign Help Needed: Modern Fascism

[MisterVimes]

Ok. I've spent the morning doing the research and here is my idea and my problem... you get to help with the solution :D

About 6 months ago, my group of Heroes were on a time travelling mission where they fought a team of Nazi Supervillains just prior to WWII. After the encounter, Overman, the leader of the Nazi team, had heard enough to realize that the people he fought were from the future and that it didn't look like the Nazi's won. He spent thhe war trying to ensure a Nazi victory, but realized that they WERE going to fail and started looking for a way to get out. He found a scientist who developed a sleep-chamber so that he could outlive those that remembered him and wake up in the future, scott free.

About 3 months ago, he was awakened by Simon Pinehurst (my major villain, very much like Telios). Pinehurst used his genetic engineering to "Upgrade" Overman into a much bigger threat (now instead of leading a team, he was a threat to my players all by his lonesome). Overman became Ultra. Pinehurst was defeated and jail (where he is now in the Hannibal Lector/Villainous Advisor role), but the team has no idea where Ultra is located.

Today. The Heroes have just gone on a Parallel World hopping adventure and they will be ending up on Nazi world soon. My idea is that when they escape Nazi world with the object they are seeking (and hopefully helping the resistance to begin the overthrow) the team will leave a little rip in space-time, allowing a small remnant of Nazis to escape into the Heroes' reality.

The Plan. I want Ultra and the expatriated Nazis to team up, conquer a small nation and have a Dr. Doom/Red Skull type threat with diplomatic immunity. My research today has been in the area of the United Nations and what they are willing to do and how soon.

Only two countries are not part of the UN (Vatican and Taiwan). But the UN has to either be invited or draft a resolution to send peacekeepers... this takes time.

The Problem: (This is where you come in ) Ultra and his cronies need a nation (preferably a socialist nation with a fascist underground or a fascist nation who needs a strong leader) that they can lead a revolution (meaning the UN will be unlikely to interfere) and overthrow the government.

So...
1) Who do they invade (I was thinking Madagascar because of the size and it's an island)?
2) How do I keep UNICORN (my UNTIL) out of it?

Your help is appreciate and feel free to steal the idea if you like it.

[Talon]

Assuming fairly realistic geopolitics, what you really need is a country where the US, China, etc. won't want to get involved. If a real threat popped up in Madagascar, the US would waltz on in, UN or no UN.

For that reason, I'd pick a former Soviet republic -- Russia doesn't want anyone else screwing around in her backyard, and is unable to deal with the threat until it's too late. I can see the UN being very unwilling to enter as well.

[Hermit]

Originally posted by MisterVimes



So...
1) Who do they invade (I was thinking Madagascar because of the size and it's an island)?
2) How do I keep UNICORN (my UNTIL) out of it?



1) I would go with a nation in South America, after all, everyone in Hollywood knows that's where a lot of old Nazis went anyways to create the next fuhrer using some Nazi treasure. WHICH nation, I'm not sure; I would likely wimp out and create a fictional one.

2) How about the nation that's being taken over was suspected of being controlled by either drug lords or of supplying terrorists world wide? This way the facsists would be seen as the 'lesser' evil... weird as that might seem.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Hermit
2) How about the nation that's being taken over was suspected of being controlled by either drug lords or of supplying terrorists world wide? This way the facsists would be seen as the 'lesser' evil... weird as that might seem.

Columbia might make a good choice... hmmm

[MisterVimes]

As an addendum, it can't be a NATO country, because AEGIS (my NATO super-agency) would role in in two seconds flat.

Nato members:
Belgium
Canada
Czech Rep
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

[levi]

South American and central African coutries are also good choices because of NAZI expatriates that fled to these areas after the war and they have very corruptable governments.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by levi
South American and central African coutries are also good choices because of NAZI expatriates that fled to these areas after the war and they have very corruptable governments.

Obviously Argentina also jumped to the forefront, but I figured that it would take too long to take over something that big and the UN would jump in.

[Hermit]

Another way to 'take over'. Take one economically struggling nation where it is NOT unheard of to have natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or tidal waves.

The facist supers covertly arrange (By powers or super science) one, focusing it chiefly on the center of government power.

Boom. Disaster hits, panic, chaos, and the government reduced to a shell, can barely tend to it's own wounds, let alone those of the citizenry.

Enter our schemers, who bring much needed supplies, morale, and help to the nation. For that matter, maybe they can 'stop' or at least avert the disaster at the last minute. The population would likely embrace such "heroes" with open arms, even to the point of wanting them as rulers.

[Vondy]

Lets see....

Socialist Values....
Fairly Volatile Domestic Situation....
Weak Economy....
Industrial Potential....
Government Engageing In Payback For Racial Oppression....
Disgruntled Minority Who Used To Be In Power....

South Africa

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Hermit
Another way to 'take over'. Take one economically struggling nation where it is NOT unheard of to have natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or tidal waves.

The facist supers covertly arrange (By powers or super science) one, focusing it chiefly on the center of government power.

Boom. Disaster hits, panic, chaos, and the government reduced to a shell, can barely tend to it's own wounds, let alone those of the citizenry.

Enter our schemers, who bring much needed supplies, morale, and help to the nation. For that matter, maybe they can 'stop' or at least avert the disaster at the last minute. The population would likely embrace such "heroes" with open arms, even to the point of wanting them as rulers.

The following was suggested by a friend on another board:
Ok, here's one:
it doesn't have to be a military invasion.

Freak the heroes out by making it a political one.

Of course, being Nazis and Overman/Ultra, therefore Pure Evil, they probably did plenty of underhanded things like assassination, blackmail, etc. (unlike current governments that we praise without question) but then made the coup itself with relatively peaceful means. But the time UNICORN knew what was going on, Ultra was either titular leader or he and the Nazis were a Shadow Government.

And South America is ripe in so many ways....drug money, weird military/police crossover, anti-American sentiment pretty much for exploitation and the effects of the drug war + guerilla terrorists looking for a central focus.

A combination of your two ideas may indeed be the ticket, especially in a pro-fascist nation... say Argentina. Plenty of Neo-Nazi backing, Ultra lays a few speeches on them and as quick as you can say "Beer Hall Putsch", he's elected and legal... just like Adolf.

[Nuadha]

It shouldn't be a country with oil. Nothing would keep the US out then.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by D-Man
Lets see....

Socialist Values....
Fairly Volatile Domestic Situation....
Weak Economy....
Industrial Potential....
Government Engageing In Payback For Racial Oppression....
Disgruntled Minority Who Used To Be In Power....

South Africa

And it's an ARYAN minority... genius, pure genius.

[SleepyDrug]

A land under dispute that is not the center of current world controversy might work.

Many African nations would be an excellent choice because they are frequently engaged in civil war. For example, Zaire (the Congo). South American nations would also be a good choice due to the high level of local corruption and historical nazi presence.

[Nuadha]

Originally posted by D-Man
Lets see....

Socialist Values....
Fairly Volatile Domestic Situation....
Weak Economy....
Industrial Potential....
Government Engageing In Payback For Racial Oppression....
Disgruntled Minority Who Used To Be In Power....

South Africa

A quick note- Socialist values would not make a place ripe for conquest by Nazis as the Nazis were not socialists despite their misleading party name. One of the first things the Nazis did was round up the communists.

Of course, if a group of fascists like the Nazis are working to replace a communist or socialist state, there is a good chance the United States would support the fascists as they have done several times in the past. (The US has a long history of supporting fascists in fights with Communists or Socialists staring when they invaded Russia during the revolution to try and keep the Czars in power.)

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Nuadha
A quick note- Socialist values would not make a place ripe for conquest by Nazis as the Nazis were not socialists despite their misleading party name. One of the first things the Nazis did was round up the communists.

Of course, if a group of fascists like the Nazis are working to replace a communist or socialist state, there is a good chance the United States would support the fascists as they have done several times in the past. (The US has a long history of supporting fascists in fights with Communists or Socialists staring when they invaded Russia during the revolution to try and keep the Czars in power.)

Actually, my thought was that in a SOCIALIST country, the potential revolutionaries might respond well to Fascist (and therefore anti-communist) rhetoric. In which case the Fascist villains would be supporting a Fascist Underground against the Socialist regime.

[MisterVimes]

Another thought. I found the following and thought it might be of help... and then I thought to share it:

FASCISM - 14 CHARACTERISTICS June 21, 2003
Dr. Lawrence Britt
Destruction Abroad to create Distraction at Home
Dr. Britt, a political scientist, published his article “Fascism Anyone?” in Free Inquiry magazine (Spring, 2003), a journal of humanist thought. He studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). Dr. Britt found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male- dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions either are eliminated, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


EDIT: No Social Commentary is intended by including this information... carry any such discussions to the Off Topic Boards

[Nuadha]

OK. That makes more sense.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Nuadha
OK. That makes more sense.

Yeah... I knew what I was saying, but I didn't convey that very well in my initial post.:D

[Lord Liaden]

Here's a slightly different suggestion that's likely to be a little more politically palatable (I'm talking realpolitikally palatable; personally I find the prospect loathsome):

Israel was created as a homeland for the Jews; Sierra Leone as a homeland for the descendants of black slaves; how about petitioning the U.N. for the creation of an Aryan homeland?

We already have the common conceit of a colony of expatriate Germans descended from the Nazis living in South America. Suppose a charismatic leader like Ultra convinced them to use some of their hoarded Nazi gold to purchase unoccupied land from Argentina or Brazil to set up as a state for the "Aryan people?" The precedent is certainly there, and as long as none of the leaders were known to have participated in war crimes, and there were no minorities within the country's borders to oppress, there might be no legal objection to it. The state could become a refuge for disgruntled white supremacists from around the globe.

I suspect that there would be no small amount of support in the international community for the creation of such a state, either from true sympathy with the Aryans' views or a desire to "send 'em anywhere as long as it's out of our country."

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
Here's a slightly different suggestion that's likely to be a little more politically palatable (I'm talking realpolitikally palatable; personally I find the prospect loathsome):

Israel was created as a homeland for the Jews; Sierra Leone as a homeland for the descendants of black slaves; how about petitioning the U.N. for the creation of an Aryan homeland?

We already have the common conceit of a colony of expatriate Germans descended from the Nazis living in South America. Suppose a charismatic leader like Ultra convinced them to use some of their hoarded Nazi gold to purchase unoccupied land from Argentina or Brazil to set up as a state for the "Aryan people?" The precedent is certainly there, and as long as none of the leaders were known to have participated in war crimes, and there were no minorities within the country's borders to oppress, there might be no legal objection to it. The state could become a refuge for disgruntled white supremacists from around the globe.

I suspect that there would be no small amount of support in the international community for the creation of such a state, either from true sympathy with the Aryans' views or a desire to "send 'em anywhere as long as it's out of our country."

What a wonderfully HORRIBLE suggestion... And the Nazi Gold comment gave me an image of Hitler's brain in a jar.

Thanks!

[Agent X]

I always liked fictional countries. Add a big island in the Caribbean and it's much closer to the United States.:) Heck, let them threaten Cuba which leaves the US Government in a confused position as to how to handle the new Island Government. Do we aggressively try to stomp out a fascist government in the Caribbean? Do we help it destabilize Cuba? Do we just ignore it? There could be plenty of support for all three positions which leads to political intrigue on the American scene full of potential for story-lines.

Add a tiny country in the Alps and it's much closer to the "Fatherland." :) If the small country never involved itself in NATO, the NATO countries may opt to stay out for political reasons, especially with notable right-wing factions in France and Germany. Then you have the tension as right-wing organizations in France and Germany receive moral and possibly more tangible support from the little Alpine Country.

Always throw in a special resource that allows the small country to have influence disproportionate to its size and population.:)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Nuadha
A quick note- Socialist values would not make a place ripe for conquest by Nazis as the Nazis were not socialists despite their misleading party name. One of the first things the Nazis did was round up the communists.

Of course, if a group of fascists like the Nazis are working to replace a communist or socialist state, there is a good chance the United States would support the fascists as they have done several times in the past. (The US has a long history of supporting fascists in fights with Communists or Socialists staring when they invaded Russia during the revolution to try and keep the Czars in power.)

The Czars weren't fascist, though.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Kristopher
The Czars weren't fascist, though. Autocratic Monarchies have many similarities with fascism. I can see the merits of the example.

[Kristopher]

RE: South Africa


Originally posted by MisterVimes
And it's an ARYAN minority... genius, pure genius.

IIRC, "Aryan" rhetoric and quasi-mythology didn't really ever enter into the conflict in South Africa.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Kristopher
RE: South Africa



IIRC, "Aryan" rhetoric and quasi-mythology didn't really ever enter into the conflict in South Africa.

You are correct, but with a Dutch-English background they certainly would fall in Ultra's definition of Aryan.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm inclined to think that South Africa would be a difficult place to stage a coup restoring white minority rule, especially under fascist supervillains, without the world community intervening. The country is too important to the economies of all the southern African states, and the current representative government has too much international recognition and symbolic influence.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Agent X
Always throw in a special resource that allows the small country to have influence disproportionate to its size and population.:)

Have no fear, whatever nation is chosen will have a previously undescovered supply of *insert name of super-metal here*

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
I'm inclined to think that South Africa would be a difficult place to stage a coup restoring white minority rule, especially under fascist supervillains, without the world community intervening. The country is too important to the economies of all the southern African states, and the current representative government has too much international recognition and symbolic influence.

Yes... I agree. But on the other hand... loads of gold and diamonds...

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by MisterVimes
Have no fear, whatever nation is chosen will have a previously undescovered supply of *insert name of super-metal here*

Perhaps it could be a superpower-inducing material like "kelvarite" from Champions Universe - very useful for breeding those ubermenschen. ;)

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
Perhaps it could be a superpower-inducing material like "kelvarite" from Champions Universe - very useful for breeding those ubermenschen. ;)

Now that is a FINE idea... Gracias

[Agent X]

South Africa would be hard to explain the lack of a strong reaction.

South America makes more sense if you really must go for a "real world nation."

I still advocate a fictional country. The advantages of producing story potential in the history of a fictional country and the ability to mold everything to your needs is very helpful.

May I suggest another plot twist: Have the Warlord and the War Machine become dominated by Ultra and his cohorts. The Flying Fortress would be very helpful in conquering a country.

[Agent X]

They could even go for the following:
Cause islands to form along an oceanic faultline. Use cloning and recombinant DNA to produce a population quickly. The cheesiest thing is the artificial "growth spurts" needed for such cloning to have a dramatic impact. You throw this into the mix and you highlight just how powerful the technology these UberNazis could have (assuming you want them to have it.)

[Gary]

How about Switzerland? With their strict adherence to neutrality, it would be extremely difficult for the rest of the world to intervene if a strong charismatic leader legally took over. The racial stock is perfect for Ultra's purposes as well, and they did have a decent number of Nazi sympathizers in WW2.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Agent X
South Africa would be hard to explain the lack of a strong reaction.

South America makes more sense if you really must go for a "real world nation."

I still advocate a fictional country. The advantages of producing story potential in the history of a fictional country and the ability to mold everything to your needs is very helpful.

May I suggest another plot twist: Have the Warlord and the War Machine become dominated by Ultra and his cohorts. The Flying Fortress would be very helpful in conquering a country.

I had not considered adding them to my Home-Brew... but now that you mention it.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Agent X
They could even go for the following:
Cause islands to form along an oceanic faultline. Use cloning and recombinant DNA to produce a population quickly. The cheesiest thing is the artificial "growth spurts" needed for such cloning to have a dramatic impact. You throw this into the mix and you highlight just how powerful the technology these UberNazis could have (assuming you want them to have it.)

I do... and I'll take that under advisement...Hmmmm
*scribbles furiously*

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Gary
How about Switzerland? With their strict adherence to neutrality, it would be extremely difficult for the rest of the world to intervene if a strong charismatic leader legally took over. The racial stock is perfect for Ultra's purposes as well, and they did have a decent number of Nazi sympathizers in WW2.

And they have tons of cash... DOH! Now I have several ideas... *pulls out hair*

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Agent X

<sbip>
South America makes more sense if you really must go for a "real world nation."
<snip>


Except that its in the USs backyard. We don't mind normal junta coups in inconsequental bannana republics, but how would we react to one pulled off by superhumans?

[Kristopher]

Regarding European candidates for Ultra to legitimately be elected in: Based on internal politics over the last 20 years, Austria is a much better candidate than Switzerland.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by D-Man
Except that its in the USs backyard. We don't mind normal junta coups in inconsequental bannana republics, but how would we react to one pulled off by superhumans?

Hmm... that's a reasonable objection. The United States does tend to treat the Americas as its sphere of influence. OTOH the U.S. has generally ignored activities there that don't impact directly on its interests - having nothing to do with the drug trade, or not part of the "worldwide communist conspiracty." I'm not sure how seriously the American government would take the takeover or creation of an apparently third-rate country by apparent crackpot fascists - at least before it was nearly too late. ;)

Of course, if the state in question were in Africa few of the world powers would pay any attention to what went on there for a long time (if history is any indication). Mind you, an African state taken over by white supremacists is going to face great hostility from its neighbors; it's just too hot-button an issue now over most of the continent. For the same reason I doubt that such a group could take power democratically.

Europe is perhaps a more reasonable prospect for a lawful takeover. In fact there has been a disturbing resurgence of pseudo-fascist sentiments in Austria in recent years; shrewd manipulation by supervillains with appropriate mind-influencing powers might tip popular sentiment there behind them. You'd have to be prepared for that country to become something of an international pariah, which would have a detrimental effect on the economy at least in the short term. Inflation, unemployment and trade deficits definitely undercut a leader's popular support.

[Trebuchet]

The only major difference between fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) is the dispensation of private property. One controls it, the other takes it. And their method of contol are virtually identical (Secret police, labor camps, total control of all media, etc.).

I like the idea of an elected leader. Make the guy charismatic as hell, have him run for office legitimately (while his Nazi goons stomp opposition party member's heads), select a scapegoat group to blame (Corrupt official are always good), and let him legally seize control just like Hitler did.

That's what happened in my campaign. My universe's biggest villain, the Emerald Mage (1750 points of bad attitude and a 300 point Cosmic VPP; formerly known as Quetzlcoatl amongst other aliases) was legally elected President of Columbia after promising to clean up the drug cartels and corrupt officials. He succeeded, and is now one of the most popular rulers in South America and is now working towards a merger of Columbia and Venezuela, with the short-term goal of creating a "United States of South America". All the while our heroes have watched helplessly because he was legally elected. They can't expose his true identity because he also knows theirs. :)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The only major difference between fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) is the dispensation of private property. One controls it, the other takes it. And their method of contol are virtually identical (Secret police, labor camps, total control of all media, etc.).


"National socialism" was a very poor choice of names on the part the Nazi party. There are major ideological differences between fascism and communism. From the outside, they can appear very similar, though, in that they're both systems of totalitarian government. But, from that angle, theocracies and autocracies appear much the same way.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
"National socialism" was a very poor choice of names on the part the Nazi party. There are major ideological differences between fascism and communism. From the outside, they can appear very similar, though, in that they're both systems of totalitarian government. But, from that angle, theocracies and autocracies appear much the same way. National socialism was quite aptly named. The core philosophy of fascism is that the collective "people" supercedes any individual rights and all things done by the State are collectively willed by the people. Communism substitutes "workers" for "people," which is really not much of a difference IMHO. I consider the real differences between fascism and socialism/communism to be rather minor, especially since both sprang form the same philisophical wellspring (Kant) and the real world practices of each are so similar. But to non-believers the differences between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims are also apparently trivial. Obviously those differences are big enough for them to kill over. :(

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The only major difference between fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) is the dispensation of private property. One controls it, the other takes it. And their method of contol are virtually identical (Secret police, labor camps, total control of all media, etc.).

I like the idea of an elected leader. Make the guy charismatic as hell, have him run for office legitimately (while his Nazi goons stomp opposition party member's heads), select a scapegoat group to blame (Corrupt official are always good), and let him legally seize control just like Hitler did.

That's what happened in my campaign. My universe's biggest villain, the Emerald Mage (1750 points of bad attitude and a 300 point Cosmic VPP; formerly known as Quetzlcoatl amongst other aliases) was legally elected President of Columbia after promising to clean up the drug cartels and corrupt officials. He succeeded, and is now one of the most popular rulers in South America and is now working towards a merger of Columbia and Venezuela, with the short-term goal of creating a "United States of South America". All the while our heroes have watched helplessly because he was legally elected. They can't expose his true identity because he also knows theirs. :)

Sounds like we've had very similar 'world changing' ideas. As far as the election, I figure that Ultra witnessed Hitler do it and was near the top of the Nazi High Command (being Metahuman and all) and learned quite a few tricks from Goebbles... etc.

[Arthur]

Well, the definition of "fascism", IIRC, is simply that the needs of society are more important than individual rights in as many areas as possible. In order to understand fascism, you would have to imagine a country wherein, for example, the rights of citizens to enjoy themselves with recreational drugs in their own homes is outlawed, and the reason given is "for the good of society". I realize that is a horrifying concept, and no country that is even remotely free could ever even consider that level of control of the private lives of its citizens.

There would also be numerous regulations, all "for the public good", but really for generating revenue and controlling the populace. For instance, absurdly low speed limits set so that driving without constantly looking at your speedometer is enough for the average person to be ticketed, and the average driver feels fear when a law enforcement officer is in their rear-view mirror.

There would be seizure of assets of suspected criminals without trial, merely on accusation, with no proof required.

Things that are taken for granted in a free society, such as the right to work for a living, would be subject to stiff taxation. Citizens would routinely have to submit bodily fluid samples in order to be hired, to be sure they weren't using any proscribed substances in their "free" time (I know this sounds scary, but it's just fiction).

Etc.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by MisterVimes
Sounds like we've had very similar 'world changing' ideas. As far as the election, I figure that Ultra witnessed Hitler do it and was near the top of the Nazi High Command (being Metahuman and all) and learned quite a few tricks from Goebbles... etc. I originally considered having the Emerald Mage take over Spain, Italy, or Portugal (He speaks all Romance languages plus several ancient tongues, but not English). But I rejected those because they were NATO members and the US would be much more likely to intervene.

Columbia was perfect as a base of operations (He originally tried seizing Belize by force, but was thwarted by the PCs). He cleaned up the drug cartels and marxist insurgents and now the US government thinks he's the best thing to hit South America in 50 years. And the massed adulation of his countrymen gives him enormous amounts of manna to power his spells. The PCs he considers little more than "quality control". He wants to bring humanity to a golden era of peace and prosperity, with himself as it's eternal ruler. He's charismatic, patient, immortal, and extremely powerful. He will, of course, eventually rule the entire world. It is, after all, his destiny. :)

[assault]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The only major difference between fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) is the dispensation of private property. One controls it, the other takes it.

No, there is a fundamental difference.

Fascism is a means of preserving the pre-existing patterns of property ownership, while communism seeks to radically change it.

That means, for example, that Nazi Germany was run on behalf of companies like Krupp and Ford, while a hypothetical communist Germany would have nationalised them. That's _why_ Krupp and Ford supported the Nazis - to crush the communists!

This is a hot-button topic, so I won't comment further.

As for likely candidates for takeover: the main problem is, of course, that the target is most likely already going to be in somebody else's "sphere of influence". This would mean that the existing power would have to be initially willing to support the new regime, or at least unable to do much about it.

It can't be too significant, economically, or it wouldn't be handed over to loose cannons, unless the loose cannons were operating behind more respectable proxies. Of course, it could (should) become more economically significant, once the presence of "super-stuff" is detected, or at least openly admitted.

I can't see a new country being established from "unoccupied" land, since there's no such thing, and the residents of "unoccupied" lands tend to get a bit irritated when they get invaded. So, that scraps the "Aryan homeland" idea, IMHO.

I would go with a fictional country. Of course, that usually does mean cutting some bit out of a real world country, but that's easier than trying to do it in-game. Alternatively, draw some islands onto the map.

The idea of artificially creating some in your gameworld is OK, too, even though its been done before. (Malachite!) In fact, this might be the best, since even fictional countries or islands logically should be "of interest" to someone.

In any case, of course, any government that gets set up would have to be recognised by other governments. Without that, the diplomatic immunity thing wouldn't apply.

I don't know. It's tricky.

The best option might be to have the Nazis being a power behind the scenes, perhaps with one being "democratically" elected, and others being appointed as diplomats by a legitimate government. Of course, diplomats can, and regularly are, expelled from their host countries, and if they systematically engage in illegal activities, diplomatic relations could be cut off. Of course, that could jeopardise access to "super-stuff", but there still would be a point where relations would be broken off, and efforts put into place to remove the "unacceptable" government.

In fact, any PCs who interact with such governments would probably be best off feeding evidence against them to outfits like the CIA. That way, they become deniable sources, and can possibly weasel out of any issues with their secret identities.

I dunno. I'd really like to play in a game like this. Smash the Nazis! Yeah. Assault would get into that. Of course, he probably wouldn't like the government that replaced them, either...

Alan

[assault]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Columbia was perfect as a base of operations (He originally tried seizing Belize by force, but was thwarted by the PCs). He cleaned up the drug cartels and marxist insurgents and now the US government thinks he's the best thing to hit South America in 50 years.

Well, in my world, "clean(ing) up the drug cartels and marxist insurgents" wouldn't be quite so simple... The cartels would try to find themselves new corrupt relationships to carry on as before, or move somewhere else. The Marxists would probably regroup and return, possibly with sympathetic supers on their side, or, more likely, in a more covert manner.

Of course, in my world, there is an unspoken agreement that minimises the amount of metahuman involvement in international conflicts. This agreement goes out the window when supervillains start taking over countries. Respectable superheroes start changing into the other costumes they keep at the back of their closets...

Alan

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by assault
No, there is a fundamental difference.

Fascism is a means of preserving the pre-existing patterns of property ownership, while communism seeks to radically change it.

That means, for example, that Nazi Germany was run on behalf of companies like Krupp and Ford, while a hypothetical communist Germany would have nationalised them. That's _why_ Krupp and Ford supported the Nazis - to crush the communists!

This is a hot-button topic, so I won't comment further.
The fact that you can even say such things as "Nazi Germany was run on behalf of companies like Krupp and Ford" shows me exactly how little you know about actual Nazi ideology. Fascism in it's own way was as radical as communism; it was hardly a friend of the traditional ways. In general the Nazis despised the old school Junkers, industrialists and nobility. Property ownership was a polite fiction under the Nazis; Kruppstahl worked at Hitler's behest not the other way around. Their instructions were to be followed or the result would be...unpleasant. Many business owners, especially of large industrial plants, found themselves little more than well-paid managers. Wars are not profitable when bombs are raining on your factories.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by assault
Well, in my world, "clean(ing) up the drug cartels and marxist insurgents" wouldn't be quite so simple... The cartels would try to find themselves new corrupt relationships to carry on as before, or move somewhere else. The Marxists would probably regroup and return, possibly with sympathetic supers on their side, or, more likely, in a more covert manner. It wasn't really simple, but it wasn't particularly difficult for my campaign's version of Dr. Destroyer. Of course the cartels relocated elsewhere, but they are no longer Columbia's problem. And it's pretty hard for agents of the drug cartel or marxist groups to remain hidden when the President of the country can cast a spell which tells him if they are lying. His first action upon taking control was to personally purge the Columbian Army's and Air Force's officer corps; he killed several hundred of them who were either corrupt or spies.

And he also has some dandy 350 point superhuman followers, the Jaguar Women. Their favorite pastime is removing living human hearts by tearing through the ribcage with their claws.

[Syberdwarf2]

Okay, I haven't read ALL of the posts, so my apologies in advance.....

Anyway, why not have them move into a small middle eastern sountry like Syria or Turkey or Iraq. Let them build a repoir with the terrorists groups and then unleash hell on Isreal. they'll have the backing, and if they stay sufficiently behind the scenes, they can move in and set up shop on the remains of the old Isreal. Not to mention that they have much in common with Palestinians in that both groups hate Jews.

[Fireg0lem]

I did something similar for my game, in my case the super villain recruited the ex-Nazi evil genius, but close enough. Here's my advice. Pick a country that has a government that is already awful, there's an unfortunately large number of countries like that. Avoid ones that are too large, too important, have strong allies, or whatnot. Then, have your Nazi troops pick up new codenames, appearances and whatnot and have them lead a revolution against the rulership of the country. Most important, make sure that things do actually get better, at least in some of the more obvious ways. They don't have to make the people of the country miserable just for kicks, and its easy to see how an oppressive but well-run and reasonably PR-minded fascist regime could be better than a brutal dictatorship or a military-controlled puppet government. Nobody can justify kicking them out of power, since they then have to explain why they didn't take the time to get rid of Mr. Evil Dictator, but they are now going to all this trouble deposing the popular heroes that the people adore for saving them from Mr. Evil Dictator.

[assault]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The fact that you can even say such things as "Nazi Germany was run on behalf of companies like Krupp and Ford" shows me exactly how little you know about actual Nazi ideology. Fascism in it's own way was as radical as communism; it was hardly a friend of the traditional ways. In general the Nazis despised the old school Junkers, industrialists and nobility. Property ownership was a polite fiction under the Nazis; Kruppstahl worked at Hitler's behest not the other way around. Their instructions were to be followed or the result would be...unpleasant. Many business owners, especially of large industrial plants, found themselves little more than well-paid managers. Wars are not profitable when bombs are raining on your factories.

Oh boy. Let's see:
Fascism (more than just the Nazis, BTW) was supremely opportunistic. Its ideology was essentially just spin. (This is true for Stalinism, too, of course, but that's another question entirely.)

Every essential element of Nazism was present in the pre-WWI German state: statist nationalism, "Church, Kitchen and Children" for women, militarism, anti-semitism, repression of workers' organisations, and so on. In short: Bismarckism.

The difference was that the Bismarckian system had collapsed at the end of WWI, was replaced by a weak and chaotic system, and "needed" to be forcibly restored. This was achieved, in the end, by a repressive force that emerged outside the confines of the state apparatus - the Nazi stormtroopers. The "radical" elements of Nazi ideology were essentially suckerbait for these clowns, and was mostly ditched after the Night of the Long Knives. In fact, the latter was precisely a purge of those elements that took this stuff seriously.

The "old school Junkers, industrialists and nobility" despised the Nazi upstarts, and this was, to some extent, reciprocated. On the other hand, the Nazis were perfectly willing to suck up to them at every opportunity, like the petty little social wannabes that they were.

The Nazi system was perfectly profitable while they were winning - a few bombs didn't change that. It only became a problem when they took on people that could fight back.

As for Nazi control of the economy: most of this control was of the labour force. It's true, various Nazi officials wedged themselves into the economic system, trying to make fortunes for themselves. That was because they wanted to become part of the system that they were defending. They were opportunists and parasites. The industrialists were willing to tolerate this as long as they delivered results: new resources, captive markets, the elimination of competitors, and a pacified workforce.

Centralised control of industrial production really only emerged late in the war, in response to the prospect of defeat. Prior to that, the German economy was still to a considerable degree operating on a peace-time basis. This wasn't a good thing while fighting a total war!

Companies like General Motors, Ford and Krupp make immense fortunes from the Nazi regime. Some of this was lost with the Nazi defeat. If the Nazis had been prevented from taking power, ALL of it would have been lost.

Incidentally, check out Spain for what fascist governments become over the long run. Remember: there has been no purge of fascist elements there. The current Prime Minister was a member of Franco's political organisation, or at least its youth wing. His party is one of the successors of Franco's organisation. Radical, my foot.

Fascism, generically, is a brand of terrorist dictatorship, that uses massive violence to repress threats to social order. Its ideology typically involves conservative nationalist values. Its governing form is typically dictatorial, although there are not-dissimilar "democratic" forms, where violence is "only" directed against the poorest sections of society and dissidents.

Examples of this include: the southern states of the US after the failure of Reconstruction! Yes, the bedsheet brigade were the true American equivalent of fascism, and yes, they did run parts of the USA. And yes, they did so "democratically". And lynchings were excuses for family outings...

One of my favourite alternate dimensions in Champions 3-D was Confederate World. :)

I'm going to post this, though I probably shouldn't. These boards are usually pretty good at staying on topic, so I'm even more reluctant than usual to post flamebait.

Anyway, I can see that I am going to have to consider running a Golden Age campaign. That's a little difficult in my usual Australian setting, which was (a) too small at that time, and (b) too deeply involved in the war from 1939 onwards.

Of course, a US based campaign run by me would be a bit odd, since I haven't been to the US for 25 years, and then only for a few weeks. Still, very few of us have ever been to the US in the 1930s and 1940s, so I guess I mightn't be at too much of a disadvantage. Lucky nobody from the US would be able to hear the accents I would be using. :)

I've been looking at various golden age Superman and Batman comics that are available on the net recently (Google is your friend), and it's true that the early versions of these characters can be built on very few points. Unfortunately, they both rapidly gained huge power levels, and many of the characters that followed them tended to match their extended, rather than initial levels. On the other hand, there were plenty of low powered characters too, so I can't complain.

Anyway, I've digressed wildly from the original topic of the thread, so I will stop here.

Alan

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by assault
Anyway, I've digressed wildly from the original topic of the thread, so I will stop here.

Alan

Actually, I think that this has all been fairly on-topic. If someone is seriously interested in running a campaign featuring Nazi elements amoungst the central villains, then a thorough understanding of fascism is requisite. (Unless of course one wanted to run a 4-Color campaign and make all the Nazis into charicature hairy Hun monsters, or alternate between buck-toothed and fanged Japanese...)

Along those lines, there is also the fact that fascism was obsessed with mythology, with the past, and with a twisted sort of conventional values. It wasn't revolutionary, it was reactionary. In these ways, it differed from communism.

[assault]

Just for a laugh, consider the following:

Many costumed adventurers from the US were fighting fascism BEFORE December 7, 1941. Many were even doing it before September 1939.

Have you ever wondered why end of the Golden Age coincided with McCarthyism?

Could it be because a significant proportion of the Golden Age "heroes" were: "Premature Anti-fascists"?

Just messing with you. :)

Oh, why not?

Consider the following, too:
Most anti-mutant propaganda comes from the far right. What is the far left's response?

How many "Commie Mutant Traitors" are there, out there?

:)

Alan

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by assault
Oh boy. Let's see:
Fascism (more than just the Nazis, BTW) was supremely opportunistic. Its ideology was essentially just spin. (This is true for Stalinism, too, of course, but that's another question entirely.)

Every essential element of Nazism was present in the pre-WWI German state: statist nationalism, "Church, Kitchen and Children" for women, militarism, anti-semitism, repression of workers' organisations, and so on. In short: Bismarckism.
That is largely correct, and I have no disagreement with most of what you said here about fascism. Nazi doctrine was essentially trying to recreate a mythological "perfect state" of Aryans; which was the only thing about them that was "conservative," just as Mussolini was trying to recreate the glory of imperial Rome. My problem came with your blanket assertion that "Nazi Germany was run on behalf of companies like Krupp and Ford," which is patently false. That's as absurd as saying that communism is a plot of the Elders of Zion. The Nazis were perfectly willing to use the industrialists (and vice versa), but that doesn't mean they were working at the behest of said industrialists.

This thread has wandered a bit off topic, but not much. Most people have no real idea of what Nazism means; their ideas are formed by 60 years of movies and books with Nazi heavies which offer little but a cardboard cutout representation of Nazis (They hate Jews, have cool black uniforms, decorate everything with swastikas, are evil, use advanced technology, etc.) but nothing of the actual meat. There is certainly nothing to admire about the Nazis, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of study. Evil is always interesting, at least in the abstract.

Two books on the subject I can recommend: The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS by Heinz Höhne, and The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945 by Richard Grunberger

[Speedball]

I'm going to keep away from the 'what is fascism' debate and try and answer the question. I do find the discussion interesting, but as a teacher sometimes I like to sit back and listen...
Anywho,
I would agree with those folks who say that you have to make sure that there are no known deposits of minerals or nothing would keep the US from barging in and screwing up your story. Thus, I think the former Soviet Republics *might* work from a geo-political standpoint as long as it isn't one that has oil deposits.
But from a game-play aspect, you want to use a country that the players know any have a vision of in their head, no? I mean, how many people in the US even know where Turkmenistan is? I would temper my concern for realism with a concern for this pre-conceived set of ideas.

I would suggest Tibet. I think China would probably veto any force from the UN, thinking that the UN would stay until the area is actually liberated. China has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and so can do this with impunity. The Chinese record in Tibet is one that it has been fairly careful to conceal, and the Chinese government has often been slow to react to potential problems owing to closed-door arguments between different factions of its leadership.

Besides, wouldn't all those mountains be a great place for a fight? You could have the heroes duke it out on Everest or K2. I know as a player I'd get jazzed about that.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

[assault]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The Nazis were perfectly willing to use the industrialists (and vice versa), but that doesn't mean they were working at the behest of said industrialists.

It was something of an alliance.

The Nazis were a mass movement based on bits of the middle class threatened and terrified by the post-WWI chaos, plus lots of thugs and criminals and general riff-raff.

The industrialists (and bankers, generals and whatnot) had resources, but little mass support.

The two groups got together to smash the labour movement (Social Democrats, Communists, and so on), who were to one degree or another threatening their interests. This "smashing" involved systematic terror, and the establishment of a dictatorship. Once the dictatorship was established, a lot of the "mass movement" element of the Nazis was eliminated. Not coincidentally, a lot of the "radical" rhetoric of the early Nazi movement was ditched at this time, when it might have been possible for them to have attempted to put it into practice.

In this situation, the Jews, Gypsies and so on were just the usual scapegoats targeted by German reactionaries. If it had been the US, different groups would have been the primary targets...

In practice, the Nazis were more or less simply a more than usually violent example of a "typical" capitalist dictatorship. The only things that could be called "socialist" about them were their early populist rhetoric - ignored in practice, plus their authoritarian statism - which was the traditional practice and ideology of most early 20th Century European states, and which could only be called socialism by people shaped by the political culture of the USA.

In this thread, I've included a couple of nasty comments directed at the US. I apologise to anyone I've offended. The most important point of them, however, is to suggest that fascism picks up characteristics from the society in which it emerges.

It makes very little sense to pick up on the "national socialist" tag, and call the Nazis "socialist". In many respects, they had more in common with very individualist, "freedom loving", anti-statist, and Christian groups in the USA - like the KKK.

OK, that's it. I'm not posting again on this thread.

Alan

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Arthur
Well, the definition of "fascism", IIRC, is simply that the needs of society are more important than individual rights in as many areas as possible. In order to understand fascism, you would have to imagine a country wherein, for example, the rights of citizens to enjoy themselves with recreational drugs in their own homes is outlawed, and the reason given is "for the good of society". I realize that is a horrifying concept, and no country that is even remotely free could ever even consider that level of control of the private lives of its citizens.

There would also be numerous regulations, all "for the public good", but really for generating revenue and controlling the populace. For instance, absurdly low speed limits set so that driving without constantly looking at your speedometer is enough for the average person to be ticketed, and the average driver feels fear when a law enforcement officer is in their rear-view mirror.

There would be seizure of assets of suspected criminals without trial, merely on accusation, with no proof required.

Things that are taken for granted in a free society, such as the right to work for a living, would be subject to stiff taxation. Citizens would routinely have to submit bodily fluid samples in order to be hired, to be sure they weren't using any proscribed substances in their "free" time (I know this sounds scary, but it's just fiction).

Etc. Drugs are bad for you.

[Agent X]

The thing to remember is that any nation with non-Aryan populations is going to bring up the spectre of how the Aryan Elite deals with them. Do you want to go there? If not, Artificial Islands is a wonderful choice. Then there's that "warm zone" at the South Pole...:)

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Agent X
The thing to remember is that any nation with non-Aryan populations is going to bring up the spectre of how the Aryan Elite deals with them. Do you want to go there? If not, Artificial Islands is a wonderful choice. Then there's that "warm zone" at the South Pole...:)

Doug... I feel, and this is just a guess, that PERHAPS you are favoring an arternate solution to a real world nation... call it "The Latverian Option":D

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by assault
It makes very little sense to pick up on the "national socialist" tag, and call the Nazis "socialist". In many respects, they had more in common with very individualist, "freedom loving", anti-statist, and Christian groups in the USA - like the KKK.Just how did the Nazis have more in common with these elements? They were anti-individualistic, oppressive (!), statist (they had one of the largest and least efficient bureacracies in Europe) and pagan; the very opposite of what you called them. And it's not like National Socialists was a name assigned to the Nazis by reactionary governments; the very name of the party was the National Socialist Worker's Party. You know, those same workers who supposedly owned everything in the former Soviet Union. Communism and national socialism are two branches of the same tree who were bitter rivals because they each viewed the other as heretics from "true socialism". They are not opposite ends of the political spectrum, but close kin.

I can't help but feel that your desire to paint the Nazis as incorporating these elements is an attempt to somehow paint them as some type of conservatives. What I see in Nazism is a violent overturning of traditional values and the creation of a personality cult based on an ideology rather than on heredity, achievement or social position. You know, like Lenin or Mao. I'm sorry if you can't handle the name socialism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others.

[WhammeWhamme]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'm sorry if you can't handle the name socialism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others.

'Socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation'

Right....

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'm sorry if you can't handle the name socialism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others. I'm sorry if you can't handle the name nationalism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book nationalism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
I'm sorry if you can't handle the name nationalism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book nationalism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others. That's one of the most inane comments I've seen recently on these boards, and that's saying a lot. Of course the Nazis were nationalists; it says so right in their very name. As in N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T. Duh. What makes you think I can't handle the obvious?

Don't like nationalism, do you? I can't help but notice you give your location as "Glasgow, Scotland," not "Glasgow, Europe" or "Glasgow, Earth." So do you consider yourself a good Scotsman, a subject of the United Kingdom, or merely a citizen of Europe?

I, on the other hand, am proud to be an ardent nationalist. We Americans are funny that way. :cool:

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Agent X
Drugs are bad for you.

So are double cheeseburgers.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by MisterVimes
Doug... I feel, and this is just a guess, that PERHAPS you are favoring an arternate solution to a real world nation... call it "The Latverian Option":D You have me pegged.:)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Arthur
So are double cheeseburgers. Especially if you think you have to have the double cheeseburgers every few hours every day and more at each meal just to achieve the flavor of that first double cheeseburger...

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Agent X
Especially if you think you have to have the double cheeseburgers every few hours every day and more at each meal just to achieve the flavor of that first double cheeseburger...

So what's your point? Either way, outlawing something "because it's bad for you" is about as crystal-clear an example of Big Brother that I can detect. Although, for purposes of this discussion, I was thinking of the common argument I hear about "the damage to society".

In a free country, I would be free to make my own decisions about how many cheeseburgers to consume and how much cocaine to snort, etc., as long as I did not harm anyone else. All arguments in favor of The War on Some Drugs are based on either micromanagement of my private life (totalitarianism) or "the good of society trumps personal freedom" (fascism).

[SKJAM!]

It occurs to me that if *we* can't necessarily agree on what fascism or Nazism is, then probably Ultra and his new cronies might not be able to either.

A skilled manipulator PC might be able to play the new government of Aryania against itself due to these philosophical differences.

Heck, I seem to recall the real-life Nazis had these kinds of internicene struggles....

Crush all Ism,
SKJAM!

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by SKJAM!
It occurs to me that if *we* can't necessarily agree on what fascism or Nazism is, then probably Ultra and his new cronies might not be able to either.

A skilled manipulator PC might be able to play the new government of Aryania against itself due to these philosophical differences.

Heck, I seem to recall the real-life Nazis had these kinds of internicene struggles....That's quite true, and the "purists" were constantly bickering with the less ideologically pure (read: opportunistic) Nazis. Movements inevitably splinter into factions; that's their nature. The communists did it too (Trotskyites, etc.). The communists were originally a radical socialist faction, as were the fascists (Mussolini was originally a communist before he broke off and formed his own party.).

That's a very clever suggestion. :D

[Alibear]

Funny how this sort stuff seems to happen but..


In my campaign I've been considering Dr. Destroyer being elected President of Cuba, after Castro dies.

[MisterVimes]

Thanks for all your excellent ideas, I'll let you know how it works out. The team is parallel-world hoping for the next few weeks. After they leave Naziworld, the rift will open that will provide Ultra with his minions. This will give him a few weeks head start. When the heroes get home, they have at least two (maybe three) plotlines to keep them busy while I drop them the weekly "In the News" plothooks. Hopefully by the time they are done with the plotlines dangling, they will notice a new Fascist State on the rise.

[Nuadha]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Just how did the Nazis have more in common with these elements? They were anti-individualistic, oppressive (!), statist (they had one of the largest and least efficient bureacracies in Europe) and pagan; the very opposite of what you called them. And it's not like National Socialists was a name assigned to the Nazis by reactionary governments; the very name of the party was the National Socialist Worker's Party. You know, those same workers who supposedly owned everything in the former Soviet Union. Communism and national socialism are two branches of the same tree who were bitter rivals because they each viewed the other as heretics from "true socialism". They are not opposite ends of the political spectrum, but close kin.

I can't help but feel that your desire to paint the Nazis as incorporating these elements is an attempt to somehow paint them as some type of conservatives. What I see in Nazism is a violent overturning of traditional values and the creation of a personality cult based on an ideology rather than on heredity, achievement or social position. You know, like Lenin or Mao. I'm sorry if you can't handle the name socialism being attached to the Nazis; but in my book socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others.

First of all, just because the Nazis were named such, does not mean that they were any way Socialist. Hitler and the Nazi party betrayed the ideals of Marx and the Socialist movement in the same manner that Stalin did in Russia.

The claim that the Nazis were a pagan group probably makes American conservatives feel better about the recent developments in the US and their simialrities to Hitler's rise to power (Hitler was widely disrespected until a terrorist attack united much of Germany behind him, he passed laws limiting people's civil rights with the excuse of "Homeland Security, etc.) but the fact is that Hitler and the Nazi party used the Christian religion.

"I am doing the Lord's work." - Hitler

"I am only an instrument on which th old god sings his song." - Goebbels

"God is with us." - Hitler

Sorry Trebuchet. You are welcome to your opinions but if everything you know about Socialism comes from corporate American media and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, then maybe you shouldn't post about it. I'm sure FOX news (aka GOP propaganda TV) says that any form of Socialism is bad and that it is doomed to fail, but forms of Socialism have had great success all over the world. Universal (Socialized) Healthcare, the worst fear of the pharmaceutical companies that wield so much power in American politics, has had great success in other countries including the USA's neighbor to the north, Canada. American media has widely ignored its success while reporting heavily on its early failures in Canada when the system was first starting up. Meanwhile, corporate television is filled with advertisements paid for by pharmaceutical companies. (Can you watch 20 minutes of American television, outside of the cartoons, without seeing an advertisement for some drug or another?) The television channels serve their advertisers, not the people and their advertisers aren't likely to make much money of socialized health care or any other form of socialism.

Even a 100% employment rate (an important cause for Socialists) is something that corporations will resist. Part of the reason a corporation can get away with paying its workers so little while profitting so heavilly and giving millions to political parties (like the US's Democrats and Republicans) because their is unemployment. If there was 100% employment and not the threat of becoming unemployed, workers would demand more instead of being happy with what they have "because at least they have a job." So, would you say, Trebuchet, that 100% employment is a bad thing since Capitalism requires unemployment?

What about the eight-hour work day and the forty-hour work week? These changes to American society ended the sweat-shop conditions that were prevalant in the US in the early twentieth century and were fought for by the American Socialists, Communists and Labor parties. If everything socialist is bad, then I guess employers should onceagain be allowed to work their people as much as they want again and if they don't like it, let them join their neighbors in the unemployment lines.

A quick search on the web turns up this web page, http://www.sp-usa.org/about/index.html, a Socialist Party in the US. Reading their party platform, I don't see how "everything socialist is bad." They have a lot of excellent ideas. Saying "everything socialist is bad" is as silly as someone arguing that "everything capitalist is bad" or "everything christian is bad." With any type of society, you will have good and bad. Certainly, capitalism has done a lot of good for the US, but it has also contributed to one of the world's most corrupt governments with politicians solidly in the pocket of big business. Does his mean "everything capitalist is bad"?

[murdoch]

Right! A chance to pontificate at last!

The National Socialist German Worker's Party was founded in late 1918 by a small group of Bavarians, mostly of the "petit bourgeoisie" and not strictly the by-definition industrial proletariat of the classical Marxian model. The incoherent nature of their political ideology was based on strains of anti-Semitic "Pan-German" movements such as the Thule Society, which in the late 19th Century rejected the traditional conservative societies of Austria-Hungary and Bismarckian Germany. It is important to note that the core constituency of these movements was what we would consider lower-white-collar and upper-blue collar: shop-keepers, clerks, and others who considered themselves above "proletarian" concerns because they owned property (small shops) or had some education, but also disliked "big business" because - wait for it - they considered it part of a upper-class Jewish conspiracy to take away their rights and property.

In any analysis of the Nazis and broader Fascist movements one has to understand that they rejected the old conservative order, which in Germany was embodied in the Prussian Nobility and the General Staff mentality. Hitler considered his Generals as having no real experience of war; he trusted Rommel and Model, for instance, because they came from non-noble backgrounds. The truth is far more complicated, of course, but here are some core ideological tenants that Hitler and the Nazis believed:

1) All history is based on the struggle between races.
2) The most creative race is the Ayran race.
3) The Jews seek to destroy the Aryan race through racial mixing (intermarriage) and outright destruction.
4) Individualism is poisonous to the harmony of the racial community (Volksgenossen) and communitarianism is the ideal, where one lives for the racial community.
5) The conservative upper classes are poisoned by Jewish intermarriage and a cosmopolitan outlook which prevents them from seeing the interests of the Volksgenossen as primary over other concerns.
6) Marxian Socialism is a Jewish conspiracy to internationalise, and therefore geld, the Aryan race and to lead the good German worker astray.

Nazi ideology was in many ways self-contradictory. However, the socialist aspects - the communitarianism, the distrust of "big money" and the upper classes - was a primary feature of Nazi ideology. Goebbels and others were of the "socialist" wing of the Nazi Party, and the Sturmabtielung (the SA, or Stormtroopers) was a haven for the Left Nazis up until 1934, when Hitler had the SS remove Roehm and the SA command (as well as purge other Left Nazis) in order to secure himself as the primary holder of power. However, this was a tactical maneuver that Hitler indulged in in order to gain the trust of the German Army.

Hitler was in the last aspect a pragmatist. He believed in most of the "left" aspects of the Nazi program, but chose when and where to implement them in order to complete his personal control over the state. When the General Staff was purged in 1944 after some members of the conservative wing of the Staff (along with many other conservative Germans) attempted to assassinate Hitler, many of the "left" Nazi ideas were implemented; a "people's" army, state control of production, and so forth.

Private property was respected by the Nazi Party only insofar as small property ownership was respected. The Nazi ideal was a nation of small farmers and shopkeepers, living in small armed villages throughout Europe which would form colonies that would fight off the remnants of inferior races (such as the Slavs.) The "National" in National Socialism was the nation of the Ayran People. Big business and the concentration of capital and production in the hands of private individuals was distrusted.

As far as religious aspects of Nazi ideology, all Nazis were expected to express a belief in a creator, a God, but not necessarily the God of the Christian Church. Himmler required all SS members to be Gottglaubig, or "God-believers," but rejected members who professed membership to the Catholic Church. In sum, religious belief was vague, and Christianity itself was considered a Jew-tainted religion. Attempts by Protestant churches to conform to Nazi ideology failed.

The Nazi Bureaucracy was anything but efficient. In contrast, each center of power in Nazi Germany was set against the other in a constant struggle for resources; this meant, for instance, that the German Navy fought with the Army for high-grade armor plate, which meant that the Army didn't have enough tanks and the Navy didn't have enough battleships. Hitler intervened only to secure his hold on the ultimate power of decisionmaking. His policy was to set each of his subordinates against each other vying for his favor, and the end result was a system which was unreliable.

Realistically, however, each of these points can and is constantly debated among scholars of Nazi Germany and the broader Fascist movements in Italy and Spain. There is no "right" absolute answer to these issues; and unfortunately Hitler isn't around to ask.

I'd welcome further commentary on this. It's chewy stuff for a game background.

Thomas Spring, PhD

"The Nazi resettlement bureaucracy and the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia" PhD Thesis, U.W. Madison, 1999.

(and a Champions GM since 1984.)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Nuadha
Even a 100% employment rate (an important cause for Socialists) is something that corporations will resist. Part of the reason a corporation can get away with paying its workers so little while profitting so heavilly and giving millions to political parties (like the US's Democrats and Republicans) because their is unemployment. If there was 100% employment and not the threat of becoming unemployed, workers would demand more instead of being happy with what they have "because at least they have a job." So, would you say, Trebuchet, that 100% employment is a bad thing since Capitalism requires unemployment?

They have a lot of excellent ideas. Saying "everything socialist is bad" is as silly as someone arguing that "everything capitalist is bad" or "everything christian is bad." With any type of society, you will have good and bad. Certainly, capitalism has done a lot of good for the US, but it has also contributed to one of the world's most corrupt governments with politicians solidly in the pocket of big business. Does his mean "everything capitalist is bad"? Well, just based on your screed it's not hard to see which end of the political spectrum you come from. :rolleyes:

First of all, if you disagree with my arguments that's fine. It's a free country and you can say anything you wish no matter how stupid it makes you sound. But you might at least try quoting me correctly. I said "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others." There is an important difference between socialist ideas and socialism. One is a group of abstract concepts, the other is a system in power. Socialism may sound good when it's adherents are shouting the slogans in the streets, but it inevitably leads to oppression whenever it tries to run a government (See Nazi Germany, Revolutionary France, Marxist Russia, Maoist China, Fascist Italy). Every socialist government that ever existed has been oppressive, and the more purely socialist it is the more oppressive it is to the people it claims to be representing. That's cold historical fact. Many groups have had seemingly good ideas that ultimately failed the reality test. The Nazis built the autobahns, made the trains run on time, and rebuilt the German economy, but I'm not prepared to call them good guys because they had some "good ideas."

Your assertation that socialism provides 100% employment is a fantasy. Not even the Soviet Union and Mao's communist China have ever attained 100% employment. And the heavily socialized advanced nations (Italy, Germany, France, Japan) have unemployment numbers approximately twice that of evil corporate-run America. More capitalistic societies such as Singapore have lower unemployment rates than America. 100% employment could only be achieved in a totally stagnant society where people hold the same job their entire lives without fear of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance. There would be no improving technology, because changes in technology means someone's profession is now outdated. The chariot builders would still have their jobs even though no one has used chariots in 2000 years. "Full employment" leaves no room for innovation, or for someone to quit to find a job they prefer, or to advance. Unemployment is not an unmitigated evil, but also an important incentive to a dynamic economy. At one time 70% of Americans worked on farms; now the number is 2% but we're producing more food than ever. Is that truly the level of technology you want to be at? If so, why are you posting on a computer when you should be living in an Amish township and repairing windmills?"

And if you really think "capitalism has done a lot of good for the US, but it has also contributed to one of the world's most corrupt governments with politicians solidly in the pocket of big business," then you need to look around the world a bit more closely. America's political system is one of the least corrupt in human history. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. We probably look bad because unlike most nations we air our dirty linen in public due to our tradition of a free press. In most other countries corruption is seen as "business as usual," whereas in the US we at least try to put corrupt officials in jail. And while corporations do donate large amounts of money to politicians, so do grass roots movements and political action groups. If corporations really ran this country as you seem to be asserting, then why does Congress keep passing anti-business legislation? Why don't corporations simply tell their owned politicians that they should be totally tax exempt?

American corporations "pay their workers so little" compared to whom? Lower class Americans have the same standard of living as middle class Europeans. "Poor" Americans own cars, TVs, microwaves, and often have weight problems from overeating. American workers are well paid and have the highest productivity in the entire world. Better than Japan, better even than the vaunted Germans. Capitalism may make money for the business owners, but the biggest benefactors are the consumers who can buy goods at incredibly low prices. I own more clothes and live in greater comfort than Louis XVI of France. Bill Gates may be worth billions, but without him or someone like him I couldn't have afforded this computer. Computers were once toys for government, big corporations and enthusiasts; now everyone in my family owns one including both of my retired parents. So I don't begrudge Bill his dough. Capitalism has made all of our lives better. It's even produced the heart medications my mom uses to deal with her congestive heart failure. Capitalistic American pharmaceutical companies develop over 60% of all new drugs worldwide every year; not government research facilities. So I trust you'll pardon me if my view of the evils of capitalism differs from yours.

You may not like my point of view, but before you accuse me of getting my information solely from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News I suggest you try broadening your own sources. Your entire comment reads like a socialist party pamphlet. :rolleyes:

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by murdoch
Right! A chance to pontificate at last!You go right on pontificating! That was very informative, and I certainly think supports my assertation that nazism was a form of socialism, just as a parliamentary democracy such as Britain is similar but not identical to a federal republic such as the US.

A book I can highly recommend on the common origins of socialism, fascism, and communism is Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

[murdoch]

Here's some good sources for Nazi ideology:

Bureaucracy:
Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship
Robert Lewis Koehl, The Black Corps
Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship, Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation

Voelkish/Nazi Ideology:
Jost Hermand, Old Dreams of a New Reich
Woodruff D. Smith, The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism

In essence, Goering can be considered to be the center of the "rightist" Nazis, while Goebbels and to a lesser extent Himmler can be considered members of the "left" Nazi circle. As the war progressed, Goering and the "rightist" Nazis lost ground to the "left" Nazis; industry was progressively brought under State control, and "non-capitalist" industrial programs were embarked upon by, in particular, Himmler and the SS.

The point is that "National" Socialism is not Marxian Socialism by any means; the Nazis had no faith in the "wisdom of the proletariat" to guide social development. Instead, the Nazis put their faith in the Fuherprinzip, or Leadership Principle, which mandated that whomever is the leader of a particular group is best suited to decide for all members what is best for the community. It is the duty of the subordinate to obey the leader; and each German (male) should be trained to be both a good leader and a good follower.

Private property is recognized, as I mentioned before, but only small holdings (shops, houses, small farms.) Ownership of large industrial or technical enterprises should be controlled by the State for the good of the Volk as a whole. In this context you can view the technocratic expertise of Albert Speer in coordinating the military production of Nazi Germany from 1943 on as an example of this approach; the owners retained the title to their companies, but the State dictated production schedules, profits, and even factory sites.

[Trebuchet]

I suppose nazism could be called a "middle class socialism" whereas marxism is more a "working class" form of socialism. I've always found it rather ironic that while Marx expected the factory workers of Germany or England to be the ones who would rise up and impose socialism; the font of marxism ended up being the primitive economy of Russia.

Nuadha implied the Nazis were not pagan, but it seems to me their ideals of a return to a mythological ideal world where the Aryan Volk rule is an implicitly pre-Christian ethos. An return, if you will, to the misty forests of primal worship of Wotan and the other proto-Germanic gods. Just because someone uses the word "God" doesn't mean they believe in a Supreme Being as defined by Christians, Jews or Muslims. And since Germany was a predominantly christian nation it would hardly have been good politics for Hitler to have said "I am greater than God" or "I don't believe in God." without it affecting his political prospects before he seized power. Certainly none of the upper eschelon Nazis were devout Christians; in fact they often persecuted churches.

Any comments on this question?

[murdoch]

Paganism was a strong undercurrent in Nazi ideology; Himmler, Rosenberg, Darre, and others were the most ardent supporters of a neopaganistic interpretation of Nazi ideology. For the most part it fell flat; more pragmatic Nazis, such as Hitler and Goering didn't pay too much attention (and ridiculed) the paganistic aspects of Nazi thought. A good work on the subject is Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism . "Pagan" revivals such as "Thing" plays and such didn't really catch on. For the most part ordinary Germans remained members of their Churches. Catholicism was persecuted to a much greater extent than Protestants; most Protestant faiths were more or less ignored, unless the members or preachers in question spoke out against Nazism (such as Niemoller.)

Nazism is, indeed, "middle-class" socialism. The lower-middle-class of shopkeepers, butchers, teachers, lower-level bureaucrats, and others of that strata made up the core of the party. These people were the most threatened from below by Marxian socialism, which threatened to remove their status as "propertied" individuals, and also by Big Business (department stores, large groceries, and the like) because the large concerns took away customers (much like the decline of "mom and pop" stores here in the US with the expansion of Wal-Mart.) These people also lost the most in the Depression; poor people did not have property to lose, and those who were rich enough could secure their possessions through out-of-country banks, or owned in title enough land to avoid the ruinous inflation and depression. To these people, Nazism offered protection of small businesses, prestige for their social strata of "skilled workers and farmers", and protection from "Jewish Socialism" and "Jewish Capitalism."

[Fireg0lem]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
100% employment could only be achieved in a totally stagnant society where people hold the same job their entire lives without fear of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance. There would be no improving technology, because changes in technology means someone's profession is now outdated. The chariot builders would still have their jobs even though no one has used chariots in 2000 years. "Full employment" leaves no room for innovation, or for someone to quit to find a job they prefer, or to advance.

For an interesting fictional discussion of this, you might want to check out (for those of you that haven't already) Aldous Huxley's Brave New World

[Scott Destroyer]

Hello,


Originally Posted by MisterVimes:
Ultra and his cronies need a nation (preferably a socialist nation with a fascist underground or a fascist nation who needs a strong leader) that they can lead a revolution (meaning the UN will be unlikely to interfere) and overthrow the government.

So...
1) Who do they invade (I was thinking Madagascar because of the size and it's an island)?
2) How do I keep UNICORN (my UNTIL) out of it?

As far as question 1 goes, there's a bit of a problem. Fascist ideology in general is closely tied to nationalism, and your expatriate Nazis will be foreigners anywhere but Germany - arguably, even there, since many are other-worldly "aliens". This would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes action, with your Nazis propping up a local dictatorship somewhere as "powers behind the throne", much as Der Spinne/ODESSA did for its favored South American regimes. With superhumans and perhaps some Nazi super-tech, your Nazis could enjoy much more actual power than ODESSA did, and hold de facto rulership through a local puppet, rather than simply aiding like-minded rulers to spite ideological opponents.

Your actual choice of nations is perhaps broader than you might think. A small but organized and ruthless faction, especially with superhuman assistance, could plausibly seize control during the chaos of popular revolution in any country. The Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the Nazis themselves all came to power in a very similar manner. The nation of choice need not be large to enjoy immunity and other diplomatic perks, and small island nations like the Comoros and the Seychelles have seen coups and power seizures by foreign mercenaries even as recently as the 1980s. Here's one suggestion that I've not seen anyone offer yet: Iran. It's larger even than Madagascar, the population is of "Aryan" racial stock, it has valuable natural resources (oil), a strategic position in the Middle East, a disdain for Jews, a distrust of both captialism and communism, a previous nationalistic government with powerful secret police and other quasi-fascist characteristics, minimal presence of intelligence services of major nations likely to meddle in events, a non-trivial scientific and industrial capability, and it currently has an oppressive government on the brink of total collapse. A change of government there would be welcome enough to many regional and world powers that, with a bit of discretion, your Nazis could plausibly avoid interference in their plans until they were solidly entrenched there.

Question 2 is much simpler. Keeping a giant bureaucracy like the U. N. from acting is like keeping water from flowing uphill. And it's a buyer's market for permanent-member Security Council vetos. Heck, sometimes even the most heinous dictators have chances to get them dirt-cheap, if the vetoing power can back-stab a perceived rival in a manner that will improve its domestic political situation. Even overt Nazism might conceivably be ignored, given the praise for Hitler that pops up from time to time in certain government-controlled Arab media outlets, and is routinely ignored by major Western media.

As to the other issues that have been examined:

The "Fascism - 14 Characteristics" article was highly amusing. 13 of the 14 characteristics applied strongly to the old Soviet Union, which would presumably make it about 93% Fascist. Nationalism (of the sort that would call the greatest conflict in human history the "Great Patriotic War" for Holy Mother Russia, and suppress the languages and cultures of its subject states), disdain for human rights, scapegoats (the bourgeoisie, kulaks, counter-revolutionaries), military priority (20%-25% of GDP, vs. 8%-10% for U. S. and 3%-5% for Western Europe, shown off in all its glory every May Day in Red Square), sexism (regular preaching against abortion, "strict regime" camps for homosexuals), controlled media, national security paranoia, government-controlled religion, suppression of labor (Solidarnösc!), all-encompassing censorship in academia and the arts, harsh punishments for crimes and nigh-unlimited police power, cronyism, and bogus elections all had their place in Soviet Russia and its satellites.

Lord Liaden's "Aryan homeland" concept seems interesting but unlikely. Even established nations with freely elected leaders that skirt the edges of similar principles have gotten the diplomatic backhand (see Austria). I'd find it hard to believe a new, upstart nation could succeed with such a policy.

South Africa seems like a possibility, but a long shot. As Lord Liaden implied, the current South African regime is the darling of leftist politicians the world over. Still, apartheid SA does have historical ties to France, which could run interference for it in the UN, and who knows if all its nuclear weapons were really destroyed...

Switzerland is an intriguing case, but also seems like a long shot, even with the ill will some Jews have recently stirred up there by suing for recovery of money and other treasures stolen by Nazis and deposited in Switzerland. Swiss neutrality and pragmatism and Nazi idealistic fanaticism seem too much at odds to mix well.

Trebuchet, murdoch: you seem like sharp and well-educated folks. So I must say I'm a bit surprised to see you bothering to argue with those who believe that "there is only one Socialism and Marx is its prophet". The things which distinguish the broad outlines of socialism to a normal person - the command economy, the mix of egalitarian rhetoric with "vanguard of the revolution" elitism, the vast contempt for the middle class and its materialistic "bourgeois" values, the substitution of some form of "social conscience" for true conscience - are hopelessly simplistic to those immersed in progressivist Newspeak. Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future was a boot stomping on a human face, forever; to some, though, it's apparently not totalitarian if the boots are nice soft felt valenki rather than nasty hard leather jackboots. Such people do occasionally change their minds, but it seldom happens until the unpleasant truths of socialism in practice become undeniably blatant - which usually only occurs when one of their personal sacred cows is gored. But, I suppose, hope springs eternal... :)

The comment about German business leaders being allied with the Nazis was particularly laughable. By those standards, American businesses are strong allies of the IRS (just look at all the money they give it!), just because a few of them think they can manipulate the tax code to their advantage against their competitors. The employment discussion was also chuckle-worthy - how hard can it be to have 100% employment when a regime can order everyone to work, at jobs of its choice, and fling those who refuse into prison for "parasitism"? :rolleyes: The worker's-eye view of the situation was the classic Soviet proletarian's comment: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Anyway, hope this helps! :)

[Alibear]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
...better even than the vaunted Germans.


Well, that is because Germans are more interested in getting to, and leaving from work on time than actually doing anything when they are there. :D

Plus, they get a whole lot more holidays than North Americans, me I get 42 days a year.



eddited for relevance.

[murdoch]

Originally posted by Scott Destroyer

Trebuchet, murdoch: you seem like sharp and well-educated folks. So I must say I'm a bit surprised to see you bothering to argue with those who believe that "there is only one Socialism and Marx is its prophet". The things which distinguish the broad outlines of socialism to a normal person - the command economy, the mix of egalitarian rhetoric with "vanguard of the revolution" elitism, the vast contempt for the middle class and its materialistic "bourgeois" values, the substitution of some form of "social conscience" for true conscience - are hopelessly simplistic to those immersed in progressivist Newspeak. Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future was a boot stomping on a human face, forever; to some, though, it's apparently not totalitarian if the boots are nice soft felt valenki rather than nasty hard leather jackboots. Such people do occasionally change their minds, but it seldom happens until the unpleasant truths of socialism in practice become undeniably blatant - which usually only occurs when one of their personal sacred cows is gored. But, I suppose, hope springs eternal... :)

True enough. A Socialist society is like the Loch Ness Monster; it may exist, but I've never seen it. Marxism-Leninism of the USSR, and Maoism-Marxism-Leninism of the People's Republic of China, were/are about as pure doctrinare Marxist as the Nazis. Socialism as a general concept predated Marx, and most of the Social Democratic parties/movements of western Europe (and the trade union movements of the USA) were non-Marxist Socialists by origin. But, as this is one big digression anyway...most of the pursuit of "ideal types" of political societies (like the "pure Socialist state") is by Political Scientists. All I can say is it hasn't worked yet, most Socialist-based societies either stagnating under the burden of trying to provide universal health care and universal employment (thus stifiling innovation and the pursuit of individual betterment) or being stuck in the classical "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, which has translated into an oligarchical (or at times dictatorial) party state which, again, stifles individual effort and initiative. I guess my point is that there's all sorts of flavors of Socialist thought, not just Marxist, but none of them has seemed to work well yet.



The comment about German business leaders being allied with the Nazis was particularly laughable. By those standards, American businesses are strong allies of the IRS (just look at all the money they give it!), just because a few of them think they can manipulate the tax code to their advantage against their competitors.

In 1931 - 1932, Hitler made a conscious effort to approach the big German industrialists (Fritz Thyssen, for example, or Hugenberg) in order to secure funding and political support for the Party. The Industrialists, on the other hand, saw Hitler as being the only viable competition to the Communist Party - from 1931-1933 the largest political parties in Germany were the Communists and the Nazis, all other parties draining into minorities under the conditions of the Depression. Both sides approached the relationship with a cynical eye to "using" the other; to say German Industrialists were fervent Nazis is false (with a couple of rare exceptions.) Also, Hitler distrusted and disliked Big Business, but needed the money and political support they could offer. It was a devil's alliance, and both parties thought they could control the other once the issue of the Communist threat was settled. As it turned out, Hitler was right and the German Industrialists were wrong. That's not to say that German industrialists "suffered" under Nazism - rearmament and the confiscation of Jewish businesses before the war were tremendously profitable for them, and after the war started a constant stream of seized businesses and factories expanded large German concerns such as IG Farben and Krupp. However, any hope of real political influence was soon proven to be a mirage. It's a truism of Soviet historiography that makes the Industry/Nazi alliance an alliance of equals; in fact, it was just another example of Hitler using existing power groups (the Army is another classical example) in order to secure control and then gradually stripping those power groups of any real influence.

[Nuadha]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Well, just based on your screed it's not hard to see which end of the political spectrum you come from. :rolleyes:

First of all, if you disagree with my arguments that's fine. It's a free country and you can say anything you wish no matter how stupid it makes you sound. But you might at least try quoting me correctly. I said [b]"socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others." There is an important difference between socialist ideas and socialism. One is a group of abstract concepts, the other is a system in power.

I apologize if you felt I was misquoting you, but I wasn't not implying that was your exact quote. It was, however, the meaning of your statement. To say "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others," is the same as saying "all socialism is bad." You did not say that "some elements of socialism is bad" or "socialism is mostly a bad thing, but they have a few good ideas." If that is what you meant, then perhaps you should have said that. Nothing gets me more riled up than when I hear (or read) someone make a blanket statement like "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others."

You would be correct in assuming that I lean towards the left politically. This doesn't mean that I go around saying that "all conservatives are bad or anything of that sort. I'm willing to recognize the good and the bad what exists.



Socialism may sound good when it's adherents are shouting the slogans in the streets, but it inevitably leads to oppression whenever it tries to run a government (See Nazi Germany, Revolutionary France, Marxist Russia, Maoist China, Fascist Italy). Every socialist government that ever existed has been oppressive, and the more purely socialist it is the more oppressive it is to the people it claims to be representing. That's cold historical fact. Many groups have had seemingly good ideas that ultimately failed the reality test.

The problem with that statement is that not one of those states mentioned have been socialist. If having elements of socialism and having a "socialist wing" to a party makes it socialist, then the US Greens and Democrat parties could be called socialist. (The Democratic Socialists are a wing of the Democrat party.)


The Nazis built the autobahns, made the trains run on time, and rebuilt the German economy, but I'm not prepared to call them good guys because they had some "good ideas."

Actually, I'm pretty sure the myth of the trains running on time was attributed to Mussolini's Italy and was a myth. :)


Your assertation that socialism provides 100% employment is a fantasy. Not even the Soviet Union and Mao's communist China have ever attained 100% employment. And the heavily socialized advanced nations (Italy, Germany, France, Japan) have unemployment numbers approximately twice that of evil corporate-run America. More capitalistic societies such as Singapore have lower unemployment rates than America.

When you can give the example of a truly socialist society, we'll be able to compare employment rates.


100% employment could only be achieved in a totally stagnant society where people hold the same job their entire lives without fear of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance. There would be no improving technology, because changes in technology means someone's profession is now outdated. The chariot builders would still have their jobs even though no one has used chariots in 2000 years. "Full employment" leaves no room for innovation, or for someone to quit to find a job they prefer, or to advance. Unemployment is not an unmitigated evil, but also an important incentive to a dynamic economy. At one time 70% of Americans worked on farms; now the number is 2% but we're producing more food than ever. Is that truly the level of technology you want to be at? If so, why are you posting on a computer when you should be living in an Amish township and repairing windmills?"

What makes you believe that just because there is full employment society can't change? If there were 100% employment, industries would have more of a workforce available to them. If people decide to change careers and return to school to learn a new trade, the workforce doesn't get thrown for the loop like a business these days because the business hasn't employed the bare minimum of employees in order to maximize their profits.


And if you really think "capitalism has done a lot of good for the US, but it has also contributed to one of the world's most corrupt governments with politicians solidly in the pocket of big business," then you need to look around the world a bit more closely. America's political system is one of the least corrupt in human history. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. We probably look bad because unlike most nations we air our dirty linen in public due to our tradition of a free press. In most other countries corruption is seen as "business as usual," whereas in the US we at least try to put corrupt officials in jail.

First of all, a "free press" is as hard to find as a "socialist society." Both of them are theories and philosophies that have never been realized in practice. Every form of media has reported the news of whoever pulls its strings. If Time/Warner or Clear Channel Stations or any other corporations that own most of the US media doesn't want a story pulished, it doesn't get published.

As far as your statement that in the US " we at least try to put corrupt officials in jail," who was the last corrupt official that went to jail? Did Cheney and the Bush Administration go to jail for giving the Iraq rebuilding contracts directly to Halliburton after already making lots of money for Cheney's buddies with the war? Was the Bush administration's attack on corporate corruption ever anything more than a couple of token arrests while Dubya's buddies at Enron got away scott-free after robbing their employees and the state of California blind?


And while corporations do donate large amounts of money to politicians, so do grass roots movements and political action groups.
While, it is nice to think that political action groups outside the NRA would ever have enough money to make a difference, the problem still exists there: In America, politicians auction themselves off to the highest bidder. Corporate America usually have more money to bid thanks to the hard work and low pay of workers.


American corporations "pay their workers so little" compared to whom? Lower class Americans have the same standard of living as middle class Europeans. "Poor" Americans own cars, TVs, microwaves, and often have weight problems from overeating. American workers are well paid and have the highest productivity in the entire world.

If you think the poor of America have it OK, maybe you should tour the ghettos of Detroit or New York sometime. For a country that controls most of the wealth in the world, we shouldn't even have ghettos. Saying that because they can get a TV or microwave out of some rich guys trash, that they are OK is misleading. The poor are better off here than elsewhere but that doesn't make it just that companies like McDonald's can get away with paying their workers less than a person can possibly live on and then use the profits they make off of those workers to fight against minimum wage increases.

The weight problems in America are from poor eating more than overeating. Americans, particularly poor Americans, consume more fast food than any other nation because it's cheaper than eating nutritious. Then, lacking the basic nutrition a body needs, they crave more food and eat more of what they can afford.


Capitalism may make money for the business owners, but the biggest benefactors are the consumers who can buy goods at incredibly low prices. I own more clothes and live in greater comfort than Louis XVI of France.
Prices are lower and clothing and items are mass produced due to technical advances that just as easily could have been developed in a socialist society. Mass production would be just as important in a society that is trying to improve living conditions for all as a society that is built on greed.



Capitalism has made all of our lives better. It's even produced the heart medications my mom uses to deal with her congestive heart failure. Capitalistic American pharmaceutical companies develop over 60% of all new drugs worldwide every year; not government research facilities. So I trust you'll pardon me if my view of the evils of capitalism differs from yours.

Do you believe that if the same research scientists were getting their paycheck from a government instead of a corporation they wouldn't have made the same discoveries?

[MisterVimes]

I love it when the world conspires to help me...

Fully armed Nazi bomber planes 'buried below East Berlin airport' (http://thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=792292003)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Nuadha
The problem with that statement is that not one of those states mentioned have been socialist. If having elements of socialism and having a "socialist wing" to a party makes it socialist, then the US Greens and Democrat parties could be called socialist. (The Democratic Socialists are a wing of the Democrat party.)

When you can give the example of a truly socialist society, we'll be able to compare employment rates.

Do you believe that if the same research scientists were getting their paycheck from a government instead of a corporation they wouldn't have made the same discoveries? 1) Taken from the "We don't know how good socialism is because we've never tried it in it's purest form" perspective, that's true. However, "pure" anything is a pipe dream when we're discussing the vagaries of human societies. I should point out that the US is by no means a pure capitalistic society either. Nor is capitalism a system of government, but an economic system. Socialism purports to be both (and must be, because making humans follow socialist ideals requires government force.). However, I think we've acquired enough empirical evidence to make an informed decision.

In every place where some variant of socialism has been tried, it has led to both lower standards of living and less freedom for the population. Conversely, capitalism has led to higher standards of living and more freedom for the population wherever it has been tried. This doesn't seem to be all that difficult to see.

2) And you are quite correct, the current Democrats and Green parties in the US are blatantly socialistic. The Republican party is slightly less so, but it's still no shining beacon of conservatism and capitalism. :(

3) The point is that those research scientists don't work for the government, they work for private industry because private industry pays them salaries commensurate with their talents. France, Germany, and Britain combined have an economy nearly as large as America's and socialized medicine to boot. So where are the new drugs from these socialistic economic titans? What drugs did the Soviet Union develop, or China? Where are the advanced medical technologies from Norway or Sweden, supposedly the most advanced socialist nations on Earth?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Arthur
So what's your point? Either way, outlawing something "because it's bad for you" is about as crystal-clear an example of Big Brother that I can detect. Although, for purposes of this discussion, I was thinking of the common argument I hear about "the damage to society".

In a free country, I would be free to make my own decisions about how many cheeseburgers to consume and how much cocaine to snort, etc., as long as I did not harm anyone else. All arguments in favor of The War on Some Drugs are based on either micromanagement of my private life (totalitarianism) or "the good of society trumps personal freedom" (fascism). My point is that I'm tired of you calling our government fascists because they don't want you getting high.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by MisterVimes
I love it when the world conspires to help me...

Fully armed Nazi bomber planes 'buried below East Berlin airport' (http://thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=792292003) Isn't that cool? If you care about the realistic implications of where a Nazi coup would be successful and ideologically sound - fictional country is the way to go. If you don't - like most comic books - do what sounds cool.

[VictorVonDoom]

i would suggest reading some comics

1) HYDRA (Nick Fury has faced them)
2) Red skull (in reborn Captain America he had an new worldorder)
3) Sect of the Serpent sons
4) Baron Von Strucker
5) Baron Blood (Vampire / Nazi scientist)

but new fascisme is passé: where do you find it?